Didn't you read this post Razd, or do you have the misconception that this rule only applies to me?
razd writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Nothing to trust - stop feeding the troll.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those who are concerned with truth:
This:
this post accuses me of "intentional deceit."
... is a false statement. The intentional deceit was admitted by "paula rose" aka dameeva aka Heinrik in this post and again in Message 235. Thus my stating it is just stating an already admitted fact, and it cannot be inflammatory to the person who admitted the intentional deceit. Being offended by the truth doesn't make the truth less valid. We've seen a whole thread apparently dedicated to the precept that anyone can take offense from the words of others, and that you can choose or pretend to be offended as you wish. The thread in effect invites people to take offense or pretend to be offended ... rather humorous.
In Message 229 I asked "paula rose" aka dameeva aka Heinrik to clarify any misconception I had in regard to this admission of intentional deceit and whether it was in fact lying:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's my misconception: that intentionally deceiving others is a definition of lying, and I have to wonder how you square this with the {idea\concept\process} of honestly presenting your opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I repeated this request in Message 232 and added a definition of "lie" for clarification:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is why you felt you needed two userIDs to begin with:
Message 229
Here's my misconception: that intentionally deceiving others is a definition of lying, and I have to wonder how you square this with the {idea\concept\process} of honestly presenting your opinion.
In other words I want to be able to take your word at face value, as I generally do all posters, however I now have self-admitted evidence of intentional deceit on your part, so am I wrong to mistrust every single thing you say?
How can I tell if you are being honest?
for reference:
lie -noun1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
(American Heritage Dictionary, 2008)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So he\she\it has been given two opportunities to defend or explain any misconception between this admitted behavior and being dishonest.
If he\she\it chooses to pretend to take offense at this then all I have to say is: you reap what you sow eh?
As far as topic is concerned this thread was started by "paula rose"/dameeva/Heinrik to talk about misconceptions, with e=mc as a talking point (one that has been covered enough for anyone really interested to do further research on their own if necessary). If this is off-topic then so is discussion of Bell's Theorum ... (which did have a topic proposal at one time ... involving misconceptions too IIRC ... )
™ Version 4.2